W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-semann@w3.org > January 2007

Re: [Fwd: Section on adding model references to inputs and outputs]

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:39:40 +0100
To: Ajith Ranabahu <ajith.ranabahu@gmail.com>
Cc: public-ws-semann@w3.org
Message-Id: <1170088780.28268.105.camel@localhost>

On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 10:23 -0500, Ajith Ranabahu wrote:
> Hi,
> > >
> > > There is a problem with "this is equivalent to adding model references
> > > to the relevant schema element". In particular, consider this scenario:
> > > <types>
> > >   <schema>
> > >     <element name="ack"/>
> > >   </schema>
> > > </types>
> > > <interface>
> > >   <operation name="a">
> > >     <output element="ack" modelReference="a_ack" />
> > >   </operation>
> > >   <operation name="b">
> > >     <output element="ack" modelReference="b_ack" />
> > >   </operation>
> > > </interface>
> > >
> > > This would be equivalent to
> > >   <element name="ack" modelReference="a_ack b_ack"/>
> > > which is not what you want, if I understand it correctly.
> 
> well the current model allows that but my feeling is that once the
> model reference is taken into account it becomes less obvious that the
> concept 'a_ack'  is relevant in the scope of the operation 'a' and
> 'b_ack' becomes active in the scope of operation 'b'. When both of
> thes e annotations are placed in the element itself it applies to the
> element universally  - not in a specific context.

Ajith, I'm afraid you may have misunderstood me. Your wording says that
the two descriptions would be equivalent. In fact, taken to the extreme,
your proposed text implies that 

<interface>
  <operation name="a">
    <output element="ack" modelReference="a_ack" />
  </operation>
  <operation name="b">
    <output element="ack" modelReference="b_ack" />
  </operation>
</interface>

would be equivalent (due to transitivity of equivalence) to this:

<interface>
  <operation name="a">
    <output element="ack" modelReference="b_ack" />  <!-- note the B -->
  </operation>
  <operation name="b">
    <output element="ack" modelReference="a_ack" />  <!-- note the A -->
  </operation>
</interface>

You may need to revise the proposed wording you have at the end of
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-semann/2007Jan/0021.html

Thanks,
Jacek
Received on Monday, 29 January 2007 16:39:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 April 2012 12:14:27 GMT